Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
SanderO wrote:OWE, that series of posts was a thing of beauty...
Frank Greening wrote:I would say that Chandler's slight of hand is the implied notion that Newton's 3rd Law is universally applicable, even to a collapsing building. The fact is that when a building is collapsing by multiple floor failures the reaction force obviously fails to balance the downward force because the yield strength of the failing columns is being exceeded.
Steven Jones wrote:No. This is a blatant and fundamental error. I have caught many a student on the equivalent of this nonsense, as I taught Newtonian Mechanics for over 21 years. Newton's 3rd law is always applicable, even in the case you mention, Frank. The key is that the "equal and opposite forces" must act on DIFFERENT bodies. Suggest you consult a basic physics or mechanics text if you don't understand that.
Tony Szamboti wrote:No, this guy OWE (I just love these anonymous psuedonyms) hasn't explained away any of Chandler's points.
He is wrong about the column resistance and his mechanics are incorrect. There is no way around the fact that a deceleration would be observable when the columns collide.
He then tries to add suspenders to his explanation by saying the lower force on the upper section is expected because the upper section is falling through weaker material, that is the floors, and in essence saying the columns missed each other. It would have been impossible for the columns to miss each other in a natural collapse.
This guy OWE's explanation is nothing more than a bunch of circle jerk and does not explain the situation at all. I really have to wonder when I see you link to these long winded explanations which amount to nonsense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests